Hank Monk

Thank you for the comments. Alright, I could have skipped the rant against the MTV rappers. But what kind of world would it be if we didn't occasionally take issue with someone? (rightly or wrongly)?

I don't know them, but from how you describe them, it makes me think they might resemble the Sonnets...

Really beautiful. I know NOTHING about them; what a pity. (Since I have an identity on debaser, I can't help but realize how many albums I would like to listen to that I will never be able to give a chance.)

Black has always fascinated me... but I’ve been stuck on true Norwegian 94. Damn, if I had a lot of free time I would listen to these younger bands because they inspire me a lot. Maybe I'll get around to it one day.

This is another one of the lies peddled by "science communicators" who are unfortunately just sensationalists. Which science is not. The story of how this whole thing about the God particle came to be is this... they were searching for the Higgs boson to see if the hypothesis was correct. They couldn't find it. They wrote a paper (scientific, I believe) titled "The goddamn particle." The publisher thought it was too vulgar and titled it "The god particle." Just stuff for a voyager :)

Ah, the field of which the Higgs is the boson would be the one that gives mass to particles (I can't explain much more because I studied these things "en passant").

@CHINASKI Furthermore, neutrinos are particles that have always caused a lot of problems (perhaps we still don't really understand what they are). They interact very weakly, so it's very difficult to measure them. At first, they were said to have an extremely small mass, then it was said they had no mass. Then they realized that there are 3 different types of neutrinos and that they transform into each other on the journey from CERN to Gran Sasso. In short, before questioning physics as a whole with an experiment on neutrinos, I would think twice. Moreover, it seems that those at Gran Sasso did not take gravitational effects into account in their synchronization system (as you said, a signal bouncing from the ground to a satellite experiences gravitational slowing, something that GPS systems consider). Then it was first published in the newspaper (!!) that this was a topic of discussion in the scientific community. Then the article was written in Word (!!); damn, 60 people signed it and not one who knew how to use LaTeX?! Never say never...though. And anyway, in physics, when something new and unexpected comes up, everyone is happy (especially in a time like this when it seems that no one at CERN believes in Higgs anymore). Time will tell.

Ah, I want to make it clear that I have no intention of being a know-it-all about this fish :). Besides the fact that I wouldn’t even be capable of it and that I’m likely to say many inaccuracies... but I really like the topic and I’m always happy to talk about it :)

Thank you for the comment. You're right to recommend books on these topics: unfortunately, scientific culture in general is below zero... and this fills people with prejudices. In reality, quantum mechanics (besides functioning) is truly fascinating. And I believe it exemplifies well how there is now a need for a new genius to revolutionize the mechanism of scientific thought. Let me explain: physics starts from the description of nature; what we perceive with our senses we organize into a theory that allows us to derive something more. For the very small and the very large, our senses no longer work... so the theories we create, while impeccable (those that work), describe nature in an absurd way. When we reach general relativity or high-energy physics, no one can make sense of it anymore: the real meaning of the theory becomes obscure, and one is never sure if it can really describe something real or if it’s just calculations. We need an Einstein two: one that, however, gives meaning back to time and space. But I believe this may be too much for a human brain.